I’m curious to see how conservatives view Meghan McCain. Is there a place for socially liberal Republicans in the GOP? Will people like McCain and Ken Mehlman be able to broaden the GOP’s appeal to moderates and independents? Will they be fully embraced by the powers that be in the party? Has Palin tweeted or Facebooked about McCain?

paulmdoro said:
Is there a place for socially liberal Republicans in the GOP?

Is there a place for socially conservative Democrats in the Democratic Party?

Republicans are more keen though to purge people who don’t think the same. This is why the Tea Party was created.

Azarkhan said:
Is there a place for socially conservative Democrats in the Democratic Party?

That’s not what I asked. Not sure why you need to immediately get defensive. I thought it was a reasonable question. I should have known reason doesn’t mix with some people here.

paulmdoro said:
That’s not what I asked. Not sure why you need to immediately get defensive. I thought it was a reasonable question.

I know what you asked because I can read English.
I’m not defensive. Why are you defensive?
You thought it was a reasonable question? No you didn’t. You thought you could score points. You can’t.

Azarkhan said:
I know what you asked because I can read English.
I’m not defensive. Why are you defensive?
You thought it was a reasonable question? No you didn’t. You thought you could score points. You can’t.

I’m not trying to score points. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Unlike you I come here hoping to have reasonable and informative discussions about issues I’m interested in, not to antagonize or attack people. Get a different hobby.

Only because she’s John McCain’s daughter must anyone hear this gobbledygook .

paulmdoro said:
Unlike you I come here hoping to have reasonable and informative discussions about issues I’m interested in, not to antagonize or attack people.

LOL…oh, sorry. Of course you do.

Azarkhan said:
LOL…oh, sorry. Of course you do.

You say you can read English. If that’s true, what I said above would be obvious.

Is there a place for socially conservative Democrats in the Democratic Party?

Yes, they are called Blue Dogs. Rep. Chet Edwards is a socially conservative Democratic congressman.

Meaghan McCain is hot.

Big Eddie said:
Only because she’s John McCain’s daughter must anyone hear this gobbledygook .

Well, it’s not like O’Reilly ever has anything more important on his show. What? Dennis Miller?

BECKERHEAD’S GONE PREACHER, AND QUITE THE HERETIC,
O’HANNITY IS A SIMPLY A WORLD CLASS WHINER,
O’REILLY PRESENTS THAT WEIRD BODY LANGUAGE CHICK,
ADD O’VAN SUSTEREN: ASLEEP IN MY RECLINER!

William Robert Stone said:
Is there a place for socially conservative Democrats in the Democratic Party? Yes, they are called Blue Dogs. Rep. Chet Edwards is a socially conservative Democratic congressman. Meaghan McCain is hot.

I agree on both counts.

BECKERHEAD’S GONE PREACHER, AND QUITE THE HERETIC,
O’HANNITY IS A SIMPLY A WORLD CLASS WHINER,
O’REILLY PRESENTS THAT WEIRD BODY LANGUAGE CHICK,
ADD O’VAN SUSTEREN: ASLEEP IN MY RECLINER!

paulmdoro said:
You say you can read English. If that’s true, what I said above would be obvious.

You must have asked a sensitive question. Do you suppose even Azarkhan is coming to realize that a party that keeps whittling away at the demographics cannot long endure. No African-Americans. No Hispanics. No Muslim-Americans. No young people. No well-educated people.

BECKERHEAD’S GONE PREACHER, AND QUITE THE HERETIC,
O’HANNITY IS A SIMPLY A WORLD CLASS WHINER,
O’REILLY PRESENTS THAT WEIRD BODY LANGUAGE CHICK,
ADD O’VAN SUSTEREN: ASLEEP IN MY RECLINER!

William Robert Stone said:
Yes, they are called Blue Dogs

Yes, and we all remember how they were treated by the leftist media (e.g., Rachel Maddow) and Nancy Pelosi during the debate on the health care industry takeover, specifically regarding federal funding for abortion.

Azarkhan said:
Yes, and we all remember how they were treated by the leftist media (e.g., Rachel Maddow) and Nancy Pelosi during the debate on the health care industry takeover, specifically regarding federal funding for abortion.

And, how does that fit into Paul’s question to you. Deny and deflect. You don’t seem to have much more.

BECKERHEAD’S GONE PREACHER, AND QUITE THE HERETIC,
O’HANNITY IS A SIMPLY A WORLD CLASS WHINER,
O’REILLY PRESENTS THAT WEIRD BODY LANGUAGE CHICK,
ADD O’VAN SUSTEREN: ASLEEP IN MY RECLINER!

paulmdoro said:
I’m curious to see how conservatives view Meghan McCain. Is there a place for socially liberal Republicans in the GOP? Will people like McCain and Ken Mehlman be able to broaden the GOP’s appeal to moderates and independents? Will they be fully embraced by the powers that be in the party? Has Palin tweeted or Facebooked about McCain?

Good question. I understand a certain amount of party loyalty but people do vary and it should be acceptable to consider and vote on the issues separately rather than as a party line. I have several fiscally conservative friends who are socially liberal. Socially conservative Democrats could be those who don’t endorse huge expensive social programs which would also seem pretty sensible.
Even though i Know looks are bound to have some effect, I would hope we are sensible enough to vote on the issues and general integrity rather than because one candidate is better looking. We’re cooperating in our own manipulation enough.
I also appreciate a good reasonable discussion. Don’t be discouraged by those who haven’t learned how to do that yet.

It seems that Meghan is concerned about the GOP’s long-term prospects more than party leaders might be.

Azarkhan said:
Yes, and we all remember how they were treated by the leftist media (e.g., Rachel Maddow) and Nancy Pelosi during the debate on the health care industry takeover, specifically regarding federal funding for abortion.

It isn’t just left or right. People are more diverse than that. It’s discouraging to see moderates on both sides ignored or criticized for voicing honest opinions.

Azarkhan said:
Is there a place for socially conservative Democrats in the Democratic Party?

You mean like the Blue Dog coalition which includes Bart Stupak, Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln.

JamesA1102 said:
You mean like the Blue Dog coalition which includes Bart Stupak, Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln.

That’s exactly who I mean-see earlier response:

Yes, and we all remember how they were treated by the leftist media (e.g., Rachel Maddow) and Nancy Pelosi during the debate on the health care industry takeover, specifically regarding federal funding for abortion

BTW, you’re a real idiot to mention Blanche Lincoln. What did the unions spend to defeat her in the primary? I think it was $10,000,000. And old Bart Stupak-he’s decided to retire.

I don’t know much about her, but she comes off kind of air-headed when she talks about politics and government being “sexy.” I mean, I can’t help but think of Paris Hilton and the whole, “that’s hot” thing.

The King hates Fox, yet he can’t…look….away.

Socially Liberal. Code for Progressive… She is the perfect example of the new young and upcoming Republicans. Soon you will not see a difference between the two party’s. If you want to know the Party that is going to take America back from these Tirannist.. Click on my Avatar

The Libertarian Party isn’t exactly new. How are they suddenly going to “take back America”?

It isn’t so much what we are going to do at this point in time. The Republicans will Regain seats in the house and Senate this fall and possibly regain control. You may even see a Republican Pres in 2012. That this is pretty much written in stone. Now here is the rub. You will not see much of a “real” change from business as usual. Maybe some tax rollbacks and other minor spending cuts. In the short of it. People are going to see that they were duped again as usual. The Progressives in both party’s will have stronger control. The American people will be looking for a true political party they can turn to. One that is totally against this tyrannical form of Corporate-Government power structure that is in place. A party that will bring power back to “We the people.” The Libertarian party is not going anywhere. We are slowly growing as people from both other party’s have had enough of the lies and deception. Time is on our side. On the other hand. Time on the American people and there freedoms is running out.. We will be waiting though., with open arms…

Has the Libertarian Party seen large growth in recent years? What is their overall strategy to get people elected?

Yeah, why can’t progressive Democrats be Republicans, H8erz? News flash, Megs: Your Daddy being a Republican does not make you a Republican.

Pablo said:
Yeah, why can’t progressive Democrats be Republicans, H8erz? News flash, Megs: Your Daddy being a Republican does not make you a Republican.

Oh no she’s a RINO! No room for social liberals or independent thinkers in the GOP.

Burnnotice said:
It isn’t so much what we are going to do at this point in time. The Republicans will Regain seats in the house and Senate this fall and possibly regain control. You may even see a Republican Pres in 2012. That this is pretty much written in stone. Now here is the rub. You will not see much of a “real” change from business as usual. Maybe some tax rollbacks and other minor spending cuts. In the short of it. People are going to see that they were duped again as usual. The Progressives in both party’s will have stronger control. The American people will be looking for a true political party they can turn to. One that is totally against this tyrannical form of Corporate-Government power structure that is in place. A party that will bring power back to “We the people.” The Libertarian party is not going anywhere. We are slowly growing as people from both other party’s have had enough of the lies and deception. Time is on our side. On the other hand. Time on the American people and there freedoms is running out.. We will be waiting though., with open arms…

There have been other third parties that represent those dissatisfied with politics as usual. As long as we allow ourselves to be played and divided things won’t change. Look at the comments on this site. Filled with anger and blame and insults with very little reasonable fact based discussion. No wonder we can’t seem to really move forward.

paulmdoro said:
I’m curious to see how conservatives view Meghan McCain. Is there a place for socially liberal Republicans in the GOP?

No, there isn’t. There’s plenty of room for socially libertarian Republicans, however. Socially liberal policies are really just socially Progressive policies, which are oppressive since they’re based in legal rights. Socially libertarian policies are empowering and based in natural law.

Meghan McCain has called herself a Progressive before, but honestly I doubt she has any idea what that really means. She’s advocated gay marriage, but I haven’t seen her advocate entitlement programs so I actually question her Progressivism.

Meghan McCain has complained about people commenting on her looks, so I don’t know why she’s taking this route. She’s basically doubling down on enabling people to comment on her appearance. She’s fair game.

Call me, babe ;-P

Tony Westover said:
No, there isn’t. There’s plenty of room for socially libertarian Republicans, however. Socially liberal policies are really just socially Progressive policies, which are oppressive since they’re based in legal rights. Socially libertarian policies are empowering and based in natural law.

Meghan McCain has called herself a Progressive before, but honestly I doubt she has any idea what that really means. She’s advocated gay marriage, but I haven’t seen her advocate entitlement programs so I actually question her Progressivism.

Natural law?

CosmosDan said:
There have been other third parties that represent those dissatisfied with politics as usual. As long as we allow ourselves to be played and divided things won’t change. Look at the comments on this site. Filled with anger and blame and insults with very little reasonable fact based discussion. No wonder we can’t seem to really move forward.

That’s just it. We are a country divided. The Libertarian party is open to Liberals, and Conservitives. It is a party of unity. With one goal in mind. Freedom! Make no mistake, I’m not here to sell it to you. Just offering a choice. The other chioce is totalariasm. Its up to you…

Freedom or totalariasm? Decisions, decisions.

:)

paulmdoro said:
Freedom or totalariasm? Decisions, decisions.

: )

paulmdoro said:
I’m curious to see how conservatives view Meghan McCain. Is there a place for socially liberal Republicans in the GOP? Will people like McCain and Ken Mehlman be able to broaden the GOP’s appeal to moderates and independents? Will they be fully embraced by the powers that be in the party? Has Palin tweeted or Facebooked about McCain?

I’d assume they view her in the same way progressives view Joe Lieberman. He’s respected, to a certain degree, for being an independent but his views are usually contrary to those of the majority of the party. Socially progressive people aren’t going to vote for the party that tried to pass a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage just because she’s likeable.

Burnnotice said:
Socially Liberal. Code for Progressive… She is the perfect example of the new young and upcoming Republicans.

I politely disagree.
Social Liberal, Moderate, what have you are all the same thing that being Social Liberal the core root being Socialist. When I say “Socialist” many of you will think I am referring to a hammer and a sickle, no I am not. The Core of Socialism is the first step to Government control of Social, Ethical behavior.
I do not agree with Social Liberals, which are the Liberals who are usually screaming about how they need their rights to supersede others, and who think that all people should think and act the way they do.

I believe in balance. You have the right, but it does not make it right.

People are entitled to think for themselves not have a Government that forces them to think a certain way or do things in a certain way.
A majority of people have the go ahead to make the laws that govern according to their thinking, as long as they are allowing democracy to function normally.
Truth and our decisions should be defined by the history of these past decisions whether being beneficial or detrimental to society as a whole, unfortunately the problem comes when we put our trust in the hyped up rhetoric and the persona of a political figure.
We have a saying in the media, “All viewers are sheep looking for a shepherd.”
People; specifically Liberally minded people, are swayed by charisma, rather than history, or morality.
This is where socialism starts to creep in, believing that we can achieve peace and unity through our own means not having any type of personal morality to govern our actions. This is where Mother Russia started, and it came crumbling down in the end.
The function of Government is to govern, not too dictate.
In The First American Dictionary of the English Language, Webster describes it as this:
1. To direct and control, as the actions or conduct of men, either by established laws or by arbitrary will; to regulate by authority; to keep within the limits prescribed by law or sovereign will. Thus in free states, men are governed by the constitution and laws; in despotic states, men are governed by the edicts or commands of a monarch. Every man should govern well his own family.
A Democracy is under the category of ‘Arbitrary Will”
To direct and control are by laws which are governed by a code or edict, or religious moral codes. In North America these happen to be Judea-Christian principals.
The law never changes, but the codes of conduct do.

If Government is to be Socialist, it starts to dictate what those codes are, thus it interrupts the human attribute of free will.
There are laws to protect human life, and property rights but think of it as being told how to live your life and by what edicts that are perceived by someone else for you and your family.

No I disagree with Social Liberalism it’s contrary to the ideology of The Republic, but I do agree with activism cause it is the core of free speech.

Burnnotice said:
That’s just it. We are a country divided. The Libertarian party is open to Liberals, and Conservitives. It is a party of unity. With one goal in mind. Freedom! Make no mistake, I’m not here to sell it to you. Just offering a choice. The other chioce is totalariasm. Its up to you

Yep and the Democrats are well on there way with all the Socialist Ideology.

CLTstraightguy said:
I politely disagree.Social Liberal, Moderate, what have you are all the same thing that being Social Liberal the core root being Socialist. When I say “Socialist” many of you will think I am referring to a hammer and a sickle, no I am not. The Core of Socialism is the first step to Government control of Social, Ethical behavior.I do not agree with Social Liberals, which are the Liberals who are usually screaming about how they need their rights to supersede others, and who think that all people should think and act the way they do. I believe in balance. You have the right, but it does not make it right. People are entitled to think for themselves not have a Government that forces them to think a certain way or do things in a certain way.A majority of people have the go ahead to make the laws that govern according to their thinking, as long as they are allowing democracy to function normally.Truth and our decisions should be defined by the history of these past decisions whether being beneficial or detrimental to society as a whole, unfortunately the problem comes when we put our trust in the hyped up rhetoric and the persona of a political figure.We have a saying in the media, “All viewers are sheep looking for a shepherd.”People; specifically Liberally minded people, are swayed by charisma, rather than history, or morality.This is where socialism starts to creep in, believing that we can achieve peace and unity through our own means not having any type of personal morality to govern our actions. This is where Mother Russia started, and it came crumbling down in the end.The function of Government is to govern, not too dictate.In The First American Dictionary of the English Language, Webster describes it as this:1. To direct and control, as the actions or conduct of men, either by established laws or by arbitrary will; to regulate by authority; to keep within the limits prescribed by law or sovereign will. Thus in free states, men are governed by the constitution and laws; in despotic states, men are governed by the edicts or commands of a monarch. Every man should govern well his own family.A Democracy is under the category of ‘Arbitrary Will”To direct and control are by laws which are governed by a code or edict, or religious moral codes. In North America these happen to be Judea-Christian principals.The law never changes, but the codes of conduct do. If Government is to be Socialist, it starts to dictate what those codes are, thus it interrupts the human attribute of free will.There are laws to protect human life, and property rights but think of it as being told how to live your life and by what edicts that are perceived by someone else for you and your family. No I disagree with Social Liberalism it’s contrary to the ideology of The Republic, but I do agree with activism cause it is the core of free speech.

Nice rant but I still don’t. See an agument to my statement.
In her saying she is a Social Liberal I guess means she doesn’t believe in conservative values. I see her as nothing more then a progresive trying to hide her true colors.

Rant, ?
In other words, there is no connection between Republican, and Social Liberal.
Sorry you missed the connection.

paulmdoro said:
Natural law?

Attend a 9th grade American Government class and then get back to me.

http://www.happy2shopping.us
http://www.happy2shopping.us

Burnnotice said:
I see her as nothing more then a progresive trying to hide her true colors.

Social Liberals are more aggressive, than progressive.

CLTstraightguy said:
Social Liberals are more aggressive, than progressive.

We are all doomed then……

paulmdoro said:
Natural law?

“The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it”, and that law is Reason….

John Locke was a Classic Liberal whose ideas and philosophy were used as a guideline in writing the U. S. Constitution. He believed that reason teaches that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions, and the reason we may not harm another is that we are all the possessions of God and not the Government….

When will this ditz learn her lesson. Unless you are attacking the right, the left will have no use for you other than as a punch line for a joke.

==( w ww ) . ( e b ay 2 1) . ( c om / )===

We need your support and trust!!! Dear friends, please temporarily stop your footsteps To our website Walk around A look at Maybe you’ll find happiness in your sight shopping heaven and earth You’ll find our price is more suitable for you. Thanks to the support!
Read more: ==( w ww ) . ( e b ay 2 1) . ( c om / )===